Given the “third wave” of democratic development and entrenchment that has taken hold around the world within the past three decades, the topic of how these transitioning societies cope with the legacy of atrocity and criminality that often accompany authoritarian rule has taken on a fresh salience. The structural, ethical, legal, and political problems faced during such transitions have become the topic of a burgeoning “transitional justice” sub-field within the fields of Law and Political Science. This Article will survey key episodes of transitional justice in various countries since the 1970s, and then apply the lessons gleaned to the transition of Serbia during the first five years following the deposition of authoritarian ruler Slobodan Milošević in October 2000. This Article will argue for a new transitional justice model which holds political stability is a key variable. The outcome of the transitional justice process a country undertakes on its political stability needs to be taken into account when fashioning said process. There needs to exist some sort of common understanding between the various parties involved as to the procedures and / or extent to which transitional justice will be undertaken. This argument takes away nothing from those who would cite to necessity of bringing to accountability those who have committed past crimes, but rather argues that this noble concern over “justice” needs to be equally balanced with an understanding of the political realities facing newly transitioning states. As the Serbian case of transitional justice shall demonstrate, if this balance between the need for justice and the desire for stability is not met, then the result shall be a situation where both justice and stability suffer.